"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

HOW MUCH DOES A SENATOR CHARGE TO SELL OUT THE CONSTITUTION?

>

Chris Dodd's amendment to strip retroactive immunity for criminal telecom companies from the FISA bill failed 32-66. Not a single Republican stood up for the Constitution or the rule of law-- and enough Democrats were bribed by the telecom companies to hand Bush the victory he lusted for. Glenn Greenwald has excellent coverage of the minute to minute goings-on on the floor of the Senate today.

I'd like to salute the members of the Senate who courageously stood for the Constitution today:

I don't want to list all of the members of the Senate who voted with Bush to curtail American liberties today. But I will list the names of the worst ones. The figure next to their names is the amount of bribes they have received this year from the telecom companies whose special interests they put before their duty to the Constitution and to their own constituents. As you read the list please keep in mind what 20 year Navy vet and Democratic candidate running against GOP rubber stamp Adam Putnam, Doug Tudor told us yesterday:

“On five occasions during my Navy career, I raised my hand and affirmed ‘to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.’ Members of Congress take a similar oath. I believe that those members who voted in favor of HR 6304 did so in violation of their oath of office. I would have voted against this bill.”

McCain didn't bother showing up to vote but this year he accepted bigger bribes from the Telecoms than any other member of the Senate or House, $365,955.

Jane, John, Digby, Glenn and I want to make some donations from Blue America to the heroes of this battle. We'd like to get some suggestions for who you think we should include.

UPDATE: HILLARY CLINTON DOES THE RIGHT THING

It's worth reading Hillary's statement on why she voted for Dodd's amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the bill and then voted against the bill when Dodd's amendment failed. I wish Obama had done the same.

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today's vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration's surveillance activities. Some of the legislation's provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration's surveillance activities.

While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.

But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.

Surprised to see Baucus on the good guy list but not Tester. Agree with Jacqrat about Feingold and Dodd. Bernie Sanders seems to be on the people's side much of the time.What is the possibility that Bush has been "tapping in" or " listening" to his political rivals and there could be some blackmail on the table? Or is it just a normal greed thing? You'd think rockefeller would have enough money?

Also your link goes to the "motion to invoke cloture" votes not the bill vote, which is here:http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168